Search form

You are here

growth

by Tim Murray

Maybe you haven’t heard the terrible news. The United States, like almost every nation on the planet, is in serious population overshoot. This is a vastly different world than the one Emma Lazarus lived in. Hers was an America of seemingly unlimited resources. Ours is one of Limits to Growth.

Yes, there are still vast tracts of America that are sparsely populated. But it is not about how many people a nation can contain but how many it can sustain. The United States has a limited ecological carrying capacity, and there is every indication that it has been exceeded.

That is not only a disaster for us, but a catastrophe for the world. Put it this way. The very last thing that Mother Nature needs is another American consumer. Migration from less developed countries to developed nations like ours has a “multiplier” effect. The average migrant to the United States, for example, quadruples his GHG emissions upon arrival, and this applies to the consumption of resources as well. This is not surprising. After all, most immigrants come here precisely because they want to consume more. They want to enjoy the good life, or at least a materially better life, for themselves and their children.

To prospective immigrants I would say this. Our working poor and IT workers do not need your competition. Our bulging prisons and crowded classrooms cannot accommodate you. Our fruit and vegetable crops do not need you to harvest them. Our service and hospitality sector does not need your labour, nor does the home construction industry. We have Americans to do those jobs. All they need is a decent wage, and without immigration, there is a good chance that they would get it.

The era of smokestack industries and family farms is over. The era of A. I. and robots is soon to unfold. The demand for menial labor will plummet. We will be hard put to employ our working poor, never mind the global poor that Emma Lazarus and her modern day equivalents would welcome. In other words, your services will not be required.

So here’s some advice. Turn around and go back from whence you came. If things are still too rough at home, chances are that you can find suitable sanctuary in a country located in the same region. And if you do manage to make it back, could you please convey this message to your compatriots: Take responsibility for your family size. Understand that scarcity and the conflict that issues from it are in a large part a consequence of your nation’s runaway population growth. If your nation cannot grow the pie, it can, through aggressive family planning programs, increase the size of per capita “slices” by reducing the number of diners at the table.

I think you are a victim of a misunderstanding. The Statue of Liberty was meant to tell you that liberty, democracy and the rule of law can set the citizens of your country free. It was a prescription for good government, not an invitation to come and settle here. The Lazarus poem was an add-on twenty years after the statue was erected, and not congruent with the statement that the Statue was making. Immigration and liberty are apples and oranges.

In fact, higher population density requires more regulations and laws. Population growth is inversely correlated to liberty. As Isaac Asimov said in his famous “bathroom” metaphor. If there is only one tenant and one bathroom in an apartment, the tenant has “freedom of the bathroom”. He can access the bathroom at any time. But once another tenant or tenants come to share that same apartment, the original occupant must compete to use the bathroom. Rules of use or etiquette ensue. Tenants have no unrestricted freedom to use the bathroom whenever they like. And the more tenants who move in, the more restricted the residents will be.

Perhaps a name change would clarify the message. You have heard of the Statute of Limitations. I think Lady Liberty should be rechristened as the Statue of Limitations, and her torch be replaced by a stop sign.

Published by the Council of European Canadians
Read the full article here.

The truth about immigration’s role in our prolonged population surge is ignored by the general media, leaving most citizens unaware of the underlying reason why traffic is increasing everywhere, why housing density is a threat even in historic residential districts in Portland and elsewhere -- to say nothing about the problems with rising costs of public education for ever-expanding enrollments, welfare services for vast numbers of homeless and poor people, environmental degradation in Oregon, the U.S. and elsewhere.

The rush to the U.S. by millions from around the world must be stopped if our nation is to have an acceptable quality of life here.

Overcrowding and lack of economic opportunities drive desperate people from third-world countries to the U.S. We’ve been giving financial and technical assistance to these countries for decades now, but population policy has not been adequately addressed.

Negative Population Growth says: “We believe that the optimum rate of [world] population growth is negative.” For the U.S., they recommend reducing immigration to not over 200,000 a year, causing a gradual decline in population, and stabilizing at a sustainable level of around 150 million. Fertility among native-born in the U.S. has been below replacement level for some time.

Where are the feminists when they’re needed to encourage women in other countries to demand the right to control reproduction in their own bodies, the right to decide whether to have children and if so, how many.

Joe Guzzardi, a long-time supporter of reduced immigration, gives the media a good scolding for their silence on these issues. Here are excerpts from his article:

Call to journalists: Return to your professional standards

by Joe Guzzardi, in Daily Citizen-News, Dalton GA, January 9, 2019

On New Year's Eve, The Washington Post published a shockingly biased (even as measured in the current shoddy journalism era) op-ed piece. Titled "The Demographic Time Bomb that Could Hit America," the commentary reflects columnist Catherine Rampell's opinion that declining population would represent many dramatic societal challenges.

Crucial details though are omitted, perhaps purposely. Specifically, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, by 2060 the United States is projected to grow by 79 million people, from today's 326 million to 404 million. Population is not in decline as the column infers. …

Calling all Post editors! Publishing a column about declining population's perils when population is in fact soaring is an example of why the mainstream media's trustworthiness remains well below poll numbers from decades back in the public's eye. …

Many Americans are conflicted about immigration, and deserve to know both sides of the argument. After all, the population increases between today and the mid-2060s represent about a 25 percent bump. If Americans were asked how they feel about 25 percent more people in their already overcrowded neighborhoods, schools and hospitals and on highways, most would be overwhelmingly opposed.

Instead of the full, unvarnished story, readers routinely get a set of cherry-picked facts that the media, abandoning its professional responsibilities, puts forward. Time for the truth, and let the nation come to its own conclusions.

Imagine if a stranger came to your home and criticized you to your family. That’s what happened in Los Angeles last Sunday, Feb. 12, when Mexican presidential candidate Andres Manuel López Obrador held a rally and criticized President Trump’s plans to build a wall across the U.S.-Mexico border.

López Obrador, who represents the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) said, “I think the wall and the demagoguery of patriotism are no match for the dignity and humanity of the American people.” He went on to praise California as “a refuge and blessing for immigrants,” and exclaimed “long live California,” to the cheers of the crowd.

Many recognize that most Mexican politicians suffer a deep inferiority complex toward Texas and the America. Toward Texas because they defeated Santa Ana and won their independence, and toward the U.S. because they beat them and won half of their territory, all in an attempt to win Texas back.

The current border and immigration problems the U.S. has are a reflection that Mexico has never truly accepted or respected the international border. Legal and illegal commerce and immigration have flowed back and forth with little to no restraints since 1848.

After the Mexican revolution of 1910, Mexican nationalism went into high gear. In the 1920s and 30s politicians and artists coupled the hyper nationalism with socialism and anti-capitalist, anti-Christian, and anti-American rhetoric. In 1926, Pres. Plutarco Calles initiated a fierce backlash against Catholics which led to the Cristero War. In 1938, Pres. Lazaro Cardenas nationalized the Mexican oil industry which was owned and managed by American, British and Dutch companies.

Lopez Obrador represents PRI, a Mexican political party that was founded in 1929, and that held power uninterruptedly in the country for 71 years until 2000. The PRI participates in the Socialist International, but they are not considered a true social democratic party because they have done more to loot the people and nation of their wealth, than to redistribute the wealth. In 1990, Peruvian Nobel Prize laureate for literature, Mario Vargas Llosa, called the Mexican government under the PRI “la dictadura perfecta” ("the perfect dictatorship").

While superficially Mexican politicians show a friendly face toward the U.S., they are actually very insecure and envious of their neighbor to the north. Mexican politicians routinely criticize American policies toward their nation, but heaven forbid if an American politician, particularly a president like Trump, ever criticizes Mexico.

The idea of a Mexican presidential candidate criticizing an American president on American soil is repugnant. Furthermore, the American national media and the United Nations ignored this national affront. We can also assume that California leftist arranged the visit to embarrass or provoke Trump. You can bet Lopez Obrador would not have had the same reception in Texas.

Typical of all insecure and dishonest governments, Mexican politicians see themselves and their country’s failures as faultless victims of “Yankee imperialism”. But it is ominous when foreigners are being bold enough to come to the U.S. to verbally attack us, and dangerous when fellow citizens are foolish enough to host them, and destructive when the Mainstream Media ignores or downplays the incident.

This morning, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) announced that he will introduce legislation next week that would end ALL categories of Chain Migration -- and the Visa Lottery, too.

Chain Migration is the main reason that American workers have had to compete for wages and jobs with tens of millions of new immigrants who have been given lifetime work permits the last several decades.

40% IMMEDIATE REDUCTION IN ANNUAL IMMIGRATION

Sen. Cotton says his bill would reduce the number of lifetime work permits given to foreign citizens by around 40% the first year -- and by around 50% in the tenth year after passage.

Ending Chain Migration is the primary way the bill would achieve that goal.

For several decades, immigrants no longer have been limited to bringing in a spouse and minor children. Chain Migration categories allow each immigrant (once a citizen) to petition for adult brothers and sisters, for adult sons and daughters, and for parents. Each of them can in turn do the same along with bringing their own spouses who can start whole new chains in their own families, and so forth in a never-ending pattern.

Sen. Cotton would stop all of that Chain immigration which adds millions of workers each decade without any regard to their skills or how they would affect Americans competing in the same occupations.

By limiting family immigration to a spouse and minor children -- including overseas adoptions and marriages by U.S. citizens -- Sen. Cotton says the bill would . . .

" . . . restore historical levels of immigration in order to give working Americans a fair shot at wealth creation."

At around one million a year since 1990, overall annual legal immigration has been some THREE times higher than the historical average before then.

A RARE OPPORTUNITY

Sen. Cotton's bill will be the first since 1996 to challenge the Senate to eliminate future Chain Migration.

It was in 1996 that I started NumbersUSA with our Number One legislative goal being to end Chain Migration, as recommended by the bi-partisan federal commission chaired by the Civil Rights icon Barbara Jordan.

Sen. Cotton has boldly indicated today that he will assume the leadership to advance that vision of an immigration policy that first serves the interests of our national community's workers, especially its most vulnerable.

This year represents a rare opportunity. It is the first time in nearly a hundred years that there is a President in the White House who has declared his intention to reduce the overall numerical level of immigration.

THE PROBLEM BEING ADDRESSED

Sen. Cotton is titling his bill the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment Act.

Its initials spell RAISE. It's the RAISE bill. Sen. Cotton wants to give hard-pressed American workers a raise by allowing labor markets to begin to tighten.

Sen. Cotton described the problem his bill is attempting to address:

For over a quarter century, the United States has accepted an average of 1 million immigrants annually--the equivalent of adding the entire state of Montana each year.

When only 1 out of every 15 immigrants arrives in the United States on a skills-based visa, the majority of the remaining immigrants are either low-skill or unskilled.

This generation-long influx of low-skilled labor has been a major factor in the downward pressure on the wages of working Americans, with the wages of recent immigrants hardest hit.

Wages for Americans with only high school diplomas have declined by 2 percent since the late 1970s, and for those who didn't finish high school, they have declined by nearly 20 percent. This collapse in wages threatens to create a near permanent underclass for whom the American Dream is always just out of reach.

THE 'RAISE' SOLUTION

Sen. Cotton describes the key elements of his bill like this:

Eliminate Outdated Diversity Visa Lottery: The Lottery is plagued with fraud, it advances no economic or humanitarian interest, and it does not even deliver the diversity of its namesake. The RAISE Act would eliminate the 50,000 visas arbitrarily allocated to this lottery.

Place Responsible Limit on Permanent Residency for Refugees: The RAISE Act would limit refugees offered permanent residency to 50,000 per year, in line with a 13-year average. (This is the same annual refugee cap in Pres. Trump's executive order. It is also the cap recommended in the 1980 Refugee Act, which is current law but which Presidents have routinely exceeded.)

Prioritize Immediate Family Households. The RAISE Act would retain immigration preferences for the spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.

Eliminated would be green card categories for foreign citizens who are:

Adult parents of U.S. citizens

Adult brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens

Unmarried adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens

Married adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens

Unmarried adult sons and daughters of legal permanent residents

Create Temporary Visa for Parents in Need of Caretaking: For U.S. citizens who wish to bring elderly parents in need of care-taking to the United States, the RAISE Act creates a renewable temporary visa on the condition that the parents are not permitted to work, cannot access public benefits, and must be guaranteed support and health insurance by their sponsoring children.

Friends, the difference in this being a wonderful BILL and it being an incredibly helpful LAW is likely to be the degree to which the 8 million members of NumbersUSA's online grassroots army makes it clear to their Members of Congress and to Pres. Trump that this is a true priority.

A long line of public speakers gave testimonials for why the designation is needed

The Hillsboro City Council has decided to stall a decision on whether to declare itself a sanctuary city until after the new mayor and councilors get sworn in.

In a standing-room-only Civic Center auditorium Tuesday night, council members could not reach a decision whether to designate the city a sanctuary for undocumented immigrants.

The decision would have been the last of outgoing City Councilor Olga Acuna, who requested the vote after advocates begged the city to strengthen its stand with the Latino community last month.

In what was likely the council's most difficult decision in eight years, the council voted to table a final decision until after a new councilor is appointed to fill the seat of new Mayor Steve Callaway, who served as council president.

The city is expected to appoint a replacement on the council within the next month.

Tuesday's vote was 4-2, with councilors Acuna and Kyle Allen in favor of going forward with the sanctuary city designation.

"I'm as concerned about the future as anyone," explained Councilor Rick Van Beveren, who noted his personal regret at how the recent presidential campaign rhetoric has engendered the national Latino population. "(But) I personally align with what sanctuary city portends … (and) once we're labeled, that's it."

Callaway, who was sworn in as mayor during Tuesday's meeting, said that the postponement will allow the new council — which will oversee and adhere to the decision — time to understand what a sanctuary designation will mean for Hillsboro going forward.

The decision to wait will also gives the city time to see how the federal government responds to the many cities who have made similar declarations, Callaway said. President-Elect Donald Trump has said that he would cut off federal funding for cities that declare themselves to be sanctuaries.

"Sanctuary city" is a legally non-binding term used by cities to indicate they will protect undocumented immigrants from deportation.

Oregon has had sanctuary laws in place since the 1980s, which forbid police from arresting people solely on their immigration status.

The topic of making Hillsboro a sanctuary city first arose in December, when members from community action groups WashCo Solidarity and Voz Hispana Cambio Comunitario demanded the council declare the city a sanctuary in order to send a message to Latino residents that they will be protected, specifically from immigration officials.

Instead, that night the council read a statement affirming its commitment to keeping Hillsboro "a safe city for all" — without formally declaring itself a sanctuary.

That decision didn't sit well with sanctuary proponents. On Tuesday, more than 20 people spoke out, offering testimonials to the council as to why the designation is needed.

"The community wouldn't be asking for sanctuary if the city was safe already," Unite Oregon member Carmen Madrid told the council.

That sentiment was echoed by many in the crowd. One woman said she had lived in the city for 15 years, but no longer felt safe.

"You're either for us or against us," another speaker said.

Resident Jose Jaime told the council that stalling the decision was sending a message of its own to Hillsboro's Latino population, which make up about a quarter of the city's population, according to the U.S. Census.

"You threw the Latino community under the bus (with the vote to table)," he said.

Not everyone in the audience was in favor of the proposal, however. Some spoke out against accepting illegal immigration as standard practice.

One speaker said he was against the sanctuary designation because "the people who are afraid are breaking the law."

"If the council vindicates (the law breakers), you'll be breaking the oath you just took," he told the council.

Here are the big election cycle political issues and Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s positions on what each wants to see and make happen, according to political analysts John Porter, James Kouri,...

OPEN OR CLOSED BORDERS: National Security

Hillary Clinton is for an entire Western Hemisphere of open borders, free travel with no restrictions as to identity or the numbers of people entering these countries, including the U.S. She wants a mirror image of the European Common Market. It is estimated up to 600 million people could freely migrate here.

Donald Trump is for completely closed borders with strict limitations and extreme vetting on who and how many people are allowed to enter the U.S. He is soundly opposed to the European Common Market concept.

AMERICA’S MILITARY STRENGTH:

Hillary Clinton is opposed to substantially increasing the size and strength of the U. S. Military forces. This in its self means a weaker military presence in the world. She, like Obama, doesn’t believe we should be a dominant military power.

Donald Trump is in favor of substantially increasing both the size and strength of the U.S. Military forces. This would be restoring us to the strongest military presence in the world. He, like Ronald Reagan, believes we should be a dominant military power. The Military is in the worse possible position since WWI.

FEDERAL INCOME TAXES:

Hillary Clinton plans to substantially increase Federal Income Taxes on both individuals and all businesses, large and small, and increase the inheritance tax rate to 65% of what someone, upon their death, leaves to their children or family. Increase the number of brackets to eight.

Donald Trump plans to substantially lower taxes on all individuals and all businesses, large and small, and totally eliminate the inheritance tax all together on what someone, upon their death, leaves to their children or family. Decrease the number of brackets to three.

AMERICA’S ECONOMY: Trade with foreign countries

Hillary Clinton has stated she has no desire to open any of our trade agreements with foreign nations to renegotiation. She is satisfied with NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) in spite of an $800 Billion dollar trade deficit with our trading countries, and is in favor of the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership). She believes NAFTA has boosted the American economy, in spite of a terribly slow and sluggish economy with over 95 million American workers having left the work force because there are no jobs available to them. She wants to continue the same policies.

Donald Trump has stated he wants to open our current trade agreements and renegotiate the terms of those agreements and make them more fair for the U.S. He is very unsatisfied with NAFTA and will not sign on to the TPP without further negotiations. He believes NAFTA has destroyed American manufacturing jobs and greatly weakened our economy. He sites the huge trade deficit and so many leaving the work force as evidence of it. He wants to put plans into motion that will halt American Companies from leaving this country and bring those back which have left.

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT:

Hillary Clinton wants to appoint judges who will make rulings that will be more in line with modern day Liberal and Progressive ways of thinking, possibly infringing on the right to bear arms, the right to free speech, and religion (especially Catholics and Evangelicals) being targets of change.

Donald Trump wants to appoint judges who will follow the Constitution strictly. The right of citizens to own guns, speak freely in all matters, and freedom of worship will not be infringed.(This issue alone could effect our nation for generations to come.)

PUBLIC EDUCATION:

Hillary Clinton wants to leave Common Core in tact and is opposed to school choice. She wants local school boards to teach what they are directed to teach by Common Core Standards, and parents send their children to the schools they are directed to, eliminating school competition.

Donald Trump wants to eliminate Common Core and is in favor of school choice. He wants to return all school subject content selection to the states and local school boards, and parents can send their children to the school of their choice, creating school competition.

MEDICAL CARE:

Hillary Clinton wants to keep, as is, what is referred to as Obamacare, expand upon it and finally morph it into a national government paid and managed medical system with no competition, much like Canada.

Hillary Clinton does not believe we are at war with Radical Islamic Terrorists, will not recognize them by name. She recently said, “I am not worried about terrorism in America.”

Donald Trump believes we are at war with Radical Islamic Terrorists, does recognize them by that name. He recently said, “We are at war with Radical Islamic Terrorism.” “They declared war on us and we need to declare war on them and fight to win.”

Remember Ronald Reagan’s words. You are the driver. Which of the roads above do you wish to travel and how fast do you want to drive? You are leaving the driveway and MUST turn right or left. Your decision can’t be delayed any longer, a choice has to be made.

John H. Tanton, M.D. - retired ophthalmologist and eye surgeon is recognized as the founder of the modern immigration immigration reform movement. A video tribute to John H. Tanton, M.D. is now available. Tanton is also publisher and former editor of The Social Contract.

As a strong conservationist and leading advocate for the environment, Dr. John Tanton founded the Petoskey, Michigan regional Audubon Society. He has been active in a number of environmental organizations, both locally and nationally. Dr. Tanton recognized that continued human population growth is a significant contributor to environmental problems and he therefore became involved with the Sierra Club Population Committee and became President and board member of Zero Population Growth.

As immigration became the driving force behind unending U.S. population growth, John Tanton founded FAIR - the Federation for American Immigration Reform. John Tanton is pro-immigrant and pro-legal immigration, but at reduced, sustainable numbers. He states:

"The stresses caused by population growth cannot be solved by international migration. They must be confronted by and within each individual nation. Fundamental to the concept of national rights and responsibilities is the duty of each nation to match its population with its political, social, and environmental resources, in both the short and the long term. No nation should exceed what the biologists call its 'carrying capacity.'"

This video is a tribute to the life and accomplishments of Dr. John Tanton. For more information, see:

OFIR appreciates how busy everyone is with family vacations, visiting relatives, camping trips and BBQ's!

But - you won't want to miss our BONUS summer meeting when we host a very special guest speaker that will answer the questions you have about refugee resettlement

Paul Nachman of Montanans for Immigration Law Enforcement will provide the information we need to understand the refugee resettlement that is happening in Oregon and across the country.The issue of the resettlement of thousands of Syrian refugees at a time when it is impossible to vet them should trouble everyone.

Jacob Daniels, Donald Trumps Oregon campaign manager will be dropping by to share the candidate's immigration platform with us, as well.

Please join us - bring a friend along with you - Saturday, August 13 at 2:00pm at the Best Western Mill Creek Inn, 3125 Ryan Dr. SE, Salem, just across from the Salem Costco.

The upcoming election is too important - we must get educated before we vote. Please plan to attend. Call if you have questions 503.435.0141

Please forward this invitation to a friend.

NOTE: OFIR will be hosting a booth at the Oregon State Fair - please stop by and say hello!

Does it seem like our country is coming completely unraveled with the lack of enforcement of our immigration laws?

Everyday we hear another story more horrific than the day before - murders, drugs, gangs, ID theft, tax fraud and even American citizens being laid off their jobs only to be replaced by VISA workers - which they are required to train - and the list goes on and on.

American citizens are continually being thrown under the bus, so that politicians can flood the country with low-skill, cheap labor supposedly with the potential of a big, future voting block.

Businesses that rely on cheap, illegal labor or even the excessive use of VISA workers have apparently bought off our elected officials and convinced them this is the only way to go. Meanwhile, citizens get to enjoy being displaced from jobs at all skill levels and even get to pay excessive taxes to support overwhelmed entitlement programs and over-crowded classrooms.

Our need for evermore housing is causing an environmental creep that is sickening to watch as cheap apartment complexes and ticky-tacky housing developments swallow up our beautiful farmland.

Do you have something to say? Get it off your chest in a Letter to the Editor. Elected officials do read them - although it wouldn't seem so. So - we need to write even more letters to the editor like these collected from across the country.

Read the rules for submitting your letters to each newspaper and don't overlook small, weekly papers which are often read cover to cover! Get started today with this inspiring collection of letters:

--------------------

THE ORANGE COUNTYREGISTERFollow the law on immigration

April 24, 2016

Re: “Obama actions split high court” [Front page, April 19]: You need to look no further than the two quotes the Register published on the Supreme Court’s recent hearing of Obama’s executive action on illegal immigrants. The Supreme Court’s sole job is to interpret the laws. Justice Kennedy gets it when he identifies the issue as whether Obama has used his executive power to usurp Congress’ constitutional authority to make the laws. On the other hand, liberal activist Justice Sotomayor focuses on the economic impact of illegal immigrants, which has nothing to do with the issue of executive overreach. This is why it is so critical to get a Republican president in November so we can get a new justice who knows their constitutional duty, and will follow it.

Once again the president has over-stepped laws and we need the Supreme Court to make a ruling. I can only pray the court has the wisdom to do what is right for our country and not businesses and immigrant rights organizations that are willing to overlook our laws. I cannot see the good in allowing people to break our laws to come here and when they are caught say, “I only want a better life” or “my children were born here.” The parents made the choice to break the law – period.

According to the Register, the court decision will affect 3.5 million people. These are people we must help with food, health care and education, just to name a few freebies. How many of the jobs they do could be done by our returning servicemen and women? Wouldn’t it be better to spend the money we spend on the illegals on our deserving service men and women? We shouldn’t need organizations like Robin Hvidston’s “We the People Rising” to protest the injustice of our broken immigration laws. We do not need more laws for the president to ignore, we need to enforce the laws we have. If you start taking the illegals’ cases one by one, we will never solve this problem and they will just keep coming.

I must take some exception to your statement in regard to the applicability of the rules in question and under review with the Supreme Court. You state that these rules could affect about 100,000 people in Orange County. The main article states that this affects close to 4 million people. I disagree with both counts. This issue affects more than 300 million people, all living here in the United States. Immigration, legal or otherwise, impacts all of us. It particularly impacts us all in a negative way when current laws are ignored and the government goes out of its way to provide for those who have chosen to break our laws. People make choices that they must deal with. If I choose to not pay federal income taxes, there will be ramifications as a result of that choice that affect me and my family. I do not expect a pass. But executive orders at a federal level and state drivers licenses and Medi-Cal coverage only undermine our ability to discourage illegal immigration and to adequately manage and balance legal immigration.

Months before a presidential election, Obama’s executive order for deferring deportation of approximately 4 million illegal immigrants without criminal records, but with lawfully resident children and allowing them to work, obtain driver’s licenses, gain entrance into Social Security with other welfare benefits, is before the Supreme Court.

The plan was first introduced just after the House of Representatives declined a Senate-passed immigration update in 2014. Congress had (restructured) work permits and benefits as a deterrent to unlawful immigration, whereas the administration appeared to be an enabler inciting further transgressions. This was egregious in that it inferred the parents of citizen children were using their children as illegal pawns to gain lawful admittance for themselves.

President Obama promised to transform America. In addition to packing the courts, he’s packing the nation, not only with illegal immigrant adults, but also unattended Central American children, Middle Eastern refugees and released drug traffickers to circulate in our communities, all under the Constitution’s Preamble mandate “To promote the general welfare.”

Contrary to what some people may think, there is a difference between the Berlin Wall at which President Reagan said “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall” and the wall that Mr. Trump wants to build along our southern border.

The Berlin Wall was built by communist East Germany to keep their people from escaping. Trump wants a wall to keep people out that want to come here illegally. I agree with Trump — stringent action must be taken to stop the flow of illegal aliens coming in.

A study published by the Center for Immigration Studies reports 61 million immigrants and their American-born minor children living in the United States.

Between 1970 and 2015, the proportion of immigrants to population increased by 353 percent — six times faster than the general U.S. population, which grew by 59 percent. Some states watched their numbers of immigrants rise much more steeply: in Georgia, 3,058 percent; in Virginia, 1,150 percent; and in Texas, 1,084 percent.

A survey conducted by the consulting firm A.T. Kearney and previewed by Bloomberg Business Week finds that 61 percent of Americans polled say “continued immigration into the country jeopardizes the United States.”

The immigration issue isn’t simply about numbers. It’s whether the nation will remain moored to its founding values or be transformed into a place unrecognizable. A majority of Americans understands that an American identity cannot survive open borders.

The liberal aim is to eliminate all vestiges of America’s heritage to establish a new nation easily integrated into a global village without borders (Washington Times, March 14).

Thomas Sowell’s column (DRC, March 15) states: “Historians of the future, when they look back on our times, may be completely baffled when trying to understand how Western civilization welcomed vast numbers of people hostile to the fundamental values of Western civilization — meaning people who had been taught that they have the right to kill those who do not share their beliefs.”

Europe is reaping the results of its “open door” immigration policy. Will Americans have the same harvest?

This concerns the all-important issue on immigration. Yes, there always are two sides but I’ll give the side why illegal immigration is not in American interests — just use some common sense here.

Here is a quote from former Rep. Ron Paul on the subject: “This mass migration from the Middle East and beyond is a direct result of the neocon foreign policy of regime-change, invasion, and pushing ‘Democracy’ at the barrel of a gun.” He also had this to say, “This is a man-made crisis and it is a government-made crisis.”

I believe the United States is admitting some 250,000 Muslim immigrants each year. President Barack Obama is allowing Syrian refugees by the thousands into America, despite the fact that it is impossible to check those with sinister plans of terrorism, for example.

Sen. John McCain should be exposed for being a leading supporter of the policies that brought on the refugee crisis.

Obama and EU leaders are fully aware of what brought on a refugee crisis in the Middle East.

They are playing on the compassion for the refugee civilians (children included), a situation brought on by the “globalists.” The bottom line is, illegal immigration is a threat to Western civilization.

The corruption that permeates our political parties is on display this primary season. On the Democrat side, it doesn’t matter how many votes Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., amasses; the super delegates will ensure Hillary Clinton gets the nomination. Everyone knows it. Similar shenanigans are happening on the right with Donald Trump. Only difference is Sanders is willing to eat the dirt sandwich being handed to him by party elites. He will take one for the team, but Trump won’t. He continues to expose the Republican Party corruption, and because of that, and his desire to take its cheap labor and free trade deals away, the party apparatchiks despise him. Is our political system salvageable, or is it too far gone?

Many would say it’s too far gone, that short of another American Revolution, we are doomed to deal with these two corrupt entities. I think the presence of a strong third party — a party that would appeal to disaffected Democrats and Republicans — is what’s needed. Not the lunatic fringes of either party, but thoughtful Democrats and Republicans who are sick and tired of holding their noses while voting for the latest pathetic candidate their party has trotted out for them.

The party should feature a simple platform, focusing on the economic health of the middle class and the security of our citizens. Here are a few suggestions:

1. Borders. Open borders are a security and economic nightmare. Our borders must be secured by whatever means necessary — walls, drones, satellites, border patrol, National Guard, etc. Sanctuary cities are unacceptable. Local politicians and law enforcement who refuse to cooperate with the feds will be dealt with harshly, as will businesses that employ illegal aliens.

2. Immigration. Ninety-three million Americans are out of the workforce. Many are looking for work, many have given up. Accordingly, there will be a moratorium on new immigration for five years, at which point the issue will be revisited. When the time comes, potential immigrants will need to be free of communicable diseases, be able to make a case that they will be an asset to our nation and be prepared to learn English.

3. Trade. No more trade deals that benefit big business and/or foreign countries at the expense of American workers. Flawed existing trade deals need to be renegotiated.

4. Corruption in government. U.S. senators and representatives will be limited to two terms and barred from becoming lobbyists when they leave office.

5. H1-B and H2-B visas. These programs are regularly abused by U.S. companies willing to throw American workers under the bus in favor of lower-paid foreigners. These programs will be shelved until a time when an actual labor shortage arises.

Letter to the editor: Support Trump to keep our families safe from terrorists

Radical Muslim terrorists in Pakistan bombed a park frequented by Christian families on Easter Sunday, killing 72 and injuring more than 300. Many of the dead were women and children. Muslim terrorists celebrated after the attack and promised more to come.

Meanwhile, the president of the U.S. emphasizes his goal of bringing thousands more refugees from primarily Muslim countries into the U.S. As Jim Comey, director of the FBI, has stated, it is often impossible to check on the background of these individuals, since they are not in any database.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you like the daily bombings occurring throughout the world and don’t mind if that activity becomes common here also, then please support the approach to immigration favored by President Obama, Hillary Clinton and U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree.

On the other hand, if you believe that our kids and families are precious, then I hope you’ll support Donald Trump, who has promised a temporary ban on allowing questionable individuals into the U.S. until we can do so safely.

Dear Editor: The Democrats are very good at pointing out cases in which a company reaps private profits while dumping on the rest of the society its risks and the damages caused while making these profits. This is exactly what those who employ illegal immigrants are doing: They are reaping the benefits of employing cheap and compliant labor while the costs of having this labor in our country are dumped on all of us. Our builders are making huge profits, while the rest of us pay for the schooling and welfare of children who should not be here. If our companies are to be made to pay the true costs of their profits, then the employers of illegal immigrants should pay the true costs of their cheap labor force.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. The reality is that many illegal immigrants are purposefully imported to work in illegal businesses set up by their families. These businesses pay wages that are way under the legal minimum and pay no taxes. How is any legitimate American business to compete under such unfair conditions? This is why legitimate American businesses in certain fields have been decimated and many more will go bankrupt as minimum wages are increased.

If you want to have a good laugh at comical duplicity, observe how stringent our unions are regarding any intrusion by illegal Latino labor while voting Democrat. Unfortunately, the joke is on all of us.

I’m an avid reader of the news. I constantly see references to and complaints about the tax code, our dysfunctional immigration system, crumbling infrastructure, healthcare and money spent on political campaigns, in addition to many other problems that the wealthiest country in the world should easily be able to fix.

I’m convinced that the reason these problems persist is because the plutocrats who comprise the top 1 percent of the country in wealth and income and who own half of its assets profit from the status quo. This harms the well-being of the other 99 percent and in the long run is a serious danger to our democracy.

The tax code and lobbying laws that greatly benefit the top 1 percent should be revised.

This could provide a more even distribution of wealth, which would improve the standard of living for the rapidly shrinking middle class.

If the middle class disappears, the United States may end up poor and corrupt like many of its southern neighbors.

I wanted to comment on Rob Eshman’s assertion that there is “no illegal immigration crisis” (“Haters, Meet Najia,” April 15). As a primary care physician working with indigent patients including illegal immigrants, I can attest that there is a crisis in L.A. County health care. This is manifested by the long wait times for uninsured residents (legal and illegal) for specialist consultations and by the ability of the consultants to treat only certain problems, as they are overwhelmed by demand. That demand is exacerbated by illegal immigration. California’s generosity toward illegal immigrants keeps drawing them to the state, making planning social services difficult.

Economic benefits? Is he referring to legal immigrants as entrepreneurs or illegal immigrants as criminals? If our economy grew 6 percent it may be due to 52 percent of legal immigrants being on welfare. Add to that 11-20 million current illegal immigrants. Reflect on family reunification policies and add tens of millions more. Go economy!

The U.S. Government Accountability Office, reported that there were 296,000 incarcerated illegal immigrant in state prisons in 2011. I guess our economy grew as we built new prisons and hired more guards, lawyers and judges. Migrants make up 25 percent of federal prisoners. If Americans hired Americans, wages would probably be higher, thus growing our economy.

I was “accidentally” born to a janitor father. Does that give me the right to take money from a child born of a more prosperous neighbor?

Abuse of H-1B visas, manipulation of guilt and compassion, deceptive terms like nation of immigrants cannot be discussed here. Sorry.

BY JAMES ALLSUP | (President of WSU College Republicans | Students for Trump Sr Advisor) [April 20, 2016]

In a recent letter to the editor, Hayley Hohman wrote to condemn College Republicans and the decision to host a pro-Trump table in the CUB. Hohman, you are wrong to call those concerned about illegal immigration "fear mongers."

We support legal immigration. We disavow hate. And we support the American Dream – for Americans and those who come here legally.

You are welcome to support moderate policies. I personally believe in the rule of law and strict enforcement of immigration policy, bringing in people who seek to contribute to our economy, and barring those who would break our laws, leech off our system, or do us harm – and the Republican platform agrees with me.

It is not hateful to defend our borders. It is not hateful to want to protect American interests first, nor to refuse to bend over backward for open-borders globalism and allow illegal immigrants to flood our labor market, putting Americans out of work.

I challenge you to demonstrate how defending American sovereignty is "hateful."

I question how you can state that the pro-security "movement" is not Republican. The leading candidates, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, both support building the wall. As WSU College Republicans (WSUCR) president, I work to increase awareness of all Republican candidates. Our board comprises supporters of many former Republican candidates.

Since the event, we have seen an influx of interest. Dozens of students have come out of the shadows, thanking WSUCR for standing up for free speech and voicing support for conservatism on campus.

I find the hypocrisy interesting that the media, the federal government and so many others are “outraged” at the recent events in Eastern Oregon involving the “Bundy Bunch” occupation of a wildlife refuge, while there is such limited “outrage” over President Obama’s absolute failure to enforce our immigration laws with equal vigor.

Let’s look at the facts. Did the Bundy Bunch break the letter of the law with their occupation? Yes. Did it result in costs to the public? Yes. Were any public innocents killed? No. What was the size of terror? Limited.

Let’s look at the Obama administration’s neglect to enforce our immigration laws in comparison. Was the letter of the law broken when Obama directed his agencies to not enforce existing immigration law? Yes. Did it result in costs to the public? Billions of dollars when you total up private as well as direct public costs. Were any public innocents killed? Thousands, when all the murders and vehicle accident casualties are counted, caused by the influx of illegal immigrants. This doesn’t even take into account the rapes and other criminal activity, nor does it include the casualties or costs caused by diseases brought into this country wholesale by the uncontrolled mass influx of illegals in recent years. Was terror created? Absolutely.

While I don’t approve of anarchy in any form, whether by citizens revolting against the law, or the government itself failing to enforce the law, I hope whoever sits on the jury trials for the Bundy Bunch will take a page from our pre-Revolutionary history and refuse to find the Bundy Bunch guilty, just as our forefathers refused to convict people charged with crimes against King George’s laws.

When government picks and chooses which laws to enforce, and against whom, we are no longer a free government of the people, but closer to the tyranny of King George.

In my opinion, our Congress and federal attorney general are derelict to their oath of office for not finding our president guilty of not performing his duties as chief law enforcement officer under the Constitution regarding protecting our country’s borders, causing death, facilitating the spread of disease, and costing individual citizens and the public generally billions of dollars.